Talk:Stjepan Vukčić Kosača

Neutrality

Why is this article in the category "Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina"? It is obvious that Stjepan Vukcic was Serb, he was Eastern Orthodox, and he was "Herzog of Saint Sava". Vanjagenije (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not obvious that someone is of certain ethnicity simply because of his religion. It is highly dubious whether he was Orthodox or not because we have no reliable source yet (on that issue). He may have styled himself Duke of Saint Sava (not Herzog, because he was Herzog of Bosnia). -- Imbris (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it says "Stephen founded the Orthodox Zagrađe Monastery" in the article, and I don't think a catholic would found an Orthodox monastery. And, it is not important whether he was duke or herzog (which is the same) of St Sava, but that he considered himself descendant of St Sava, who was, I believe, a Serb. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Zagrađe Monastery may be now a monastery of the Serbian Orthodox Church and tommorow the monastery of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Property changes owners. Since the monastery in question is near Novi (today Herceg-Novi) it was with great probability the monastery of the Catholic Church, Bishopry of Bar and Priorate of Serbia. Please do not insert information of today into the discussion about medieval history. Your information of him considered himself a descendant of Saint Sava is pure nonsense without sources. The descendants of Stjepan Vukčić were Catholic (like Katarina). -- Imbris (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe my evidence is not strong, by your "with great probability" sounds more stronger. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, leave the probability for articles on mathematics and logics. History requires facts. As for Catherine later converting to Roman Catholicism, that is what 99.99% of late Mediaeval women were doing when marrying for duynastic and political purposes (as 95% were doing): converting to whatever was the religion of their consort. Only after 1600s the first royal/princely female consorts allowe dto keep their fate appear, at first minimally, and later much more. Even today, the woman marrying a member of the established royal family in Europe must convert to the faith of the husband (if not already of the same faith). So that's what happened with Catherine.

In the area (the Bay of Kotor) historically, there were 3 Orthodox churches and 250 Catholic churches. -- Imbris (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This claim is false, ludicrous, unverified (nor can it be, as it is false), unreliable, and -- even if it were true, which it is not -- totally irrelevant, because Serbian Stephen Vukčić was Serbian Orthodox, claimed consanguinity with Serbian Orthodox prince and saint Saint Sava and has built Serbian Orthodox, not Roman Catholic, churches, however many there were (and the numbers you give are wrong at the late Mediaeval/early Modern time we are discussing).

–→ Stipan Kosača to be Roman Catholic and to take priest David, an Orthodox Metropolit of Mileševa, as his court chaplain! This is not possible! He was an Orthodox Christian, is the only reasonable conclusion. Add to that there is no way that Orthodox Metropolit of Mileševa serves along Gost Radin as court chaplain, if he did not consider him also Orthodox Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:362D:7300:7CBA:5DEA:FE1E:5193 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Just try to type "Stipan Vukčić Kosača" in Google, and you'll get 101 hit (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="Stipan+Vukčić+Kosača"&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=), while for "Stjepan Vukčić Kosača", you'll get 5070 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="Stjepan+Vukčić+Kosača"&btnG=Search). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against this move. -- Imbris (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you all want something more neutral, I suggest moving the page to "Stephen Vukcic Kosaca". This reduces the need to change the man's name from Stjepan to Stipan, Stefan, etc. They are all represented as Stephen in English. --Prevalis (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be POV. -- Imbris (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved on Stjepan Vukčić Kosača because he is called this way in official Bosnia and Herzegovina document from 2005 [1] --Rjecina (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible to move article on right name. If there is agreement about name then somebody need to contact administrator.--Rjecina (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• We conventionally represent rulers with common Christian names by the English form of the name, as Stephen Bathory, Stephen of England, and so on; not Istvan or Étienne This also appears to be the conventional choice in writing about Duke Stephen in English. Unless someone can explain what POV this is supposed to convey, I would prefer that choice to any mode of transliterationese. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To repeat User:Pmanderson's query, what is POV about using "Stephen"? Using English at English Wikipedia is an important guideline. — AjaxSmack 17:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • For me Stephen is best (neutral) solution because of Balkan edit warring (bosnian, croatian or serbian version of his name).--Rjecina (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • My response to that is: fine, but what is the common name (or is there one)? — AjaxSmack 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Herceg Stefan or Herceg Stjepan or Herceg Stipan. Herceg Stefan is must popular in google, but on Bosnian language (he has ruled in Bosnia) he is Herceg Stjepan.--Rjecina (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Let me rephrase and elaborate. What is the common name for him in English sources (or is there one)? I'm not interested in mere Google hits for a relatively obscure historical personage. Quality English-language sources are preferable. — AjaxSmack 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
            • In Britannica (article history of Bosnia and Herzegovina) he is called Stefan Vukčić [2]--Rjecina (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
              • And in Britannica Kosovo is a European state, Prokletije are North Albanian Alps. Stjepan Vukčić Kosača should stay. Vanjagenije agreed. -- Imbris (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here goes. I have no knowledge of the subject and no interest in the outcome except a general preference for using English.

Just using Google hits (which I don't particularly like relying on) of English-language sources with the format “"XXXX Vukčić Kosača" -Wikipedia” and then reviewing the results with a cursory eye for quality and non-English pages, I get a rough ranking of:

1. Stefan (40 pages)
2. Stjepan (43 pages) (more non-English pages slip through)
3. Stephen (6 pages)
4. Stephan (4 pages)
5. Stipan (1 page)

Conflating the results of "Stefan" and "Stephan" might also be in order (for a total of 44 hits). Google Scholar/Books doesn't seem to be of much help due to the paucity of hits.

Based on these results, "Stephen" is only desirable based on language guidelines or "neutrality" non-guidelines but not on common usage ones. Both "Stefan/Stephan" and "Stjepan" can claim to be common names but there are potential "Balkan edit warring" issues.

I'm still holding out for someone to bring in authoritative, quality, English-language, relevant histories by (relatively) disinterested parties to provide better guidance. Good luck! — AjaxSmack 20:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen can also be written Steven. The article should remain under the name Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, he was not a king or some important figure with regards to English historians. -- Imbris (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There were no hits for "Steven"[3], hence no mention. That "he was not a king or some important figure with regards to English historians" is not an absolute statement. He rated mention in Britannica as noted above. — AjaxSmack 01:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If Stjepan is not most neutral (official Bosnia and Yugoslavian lexicography and encyclopaedistics calls him Stjepan) then Steven is the best choice because Stephan is POV. -- Imbris (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

These are the Google books hits on the most used variants of his name:

• Stefan Vukčić Kosača+Стефан Вукчић Косача (Stefan) = about 2980+1980
• Stjepan Vukčić Kosača+Стјепан Вукчић Косача (Stjepan) = about 3520+303

This concludes that Stefan is the most used name collectively (in Latin and Cyrillic). The most neutral would be Stephen Vukčić Kosača (Stephen Vukčić = 292), which I support a move to.--Zoupan 19:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

–→ We need to be true and call him what he called, most probably, himself. Samo istina. Ne Stjepan, ne Stefan nego Stipan Vukčić Kosača Herceg Svetog Save, kao što je zapisano na epitafu kraljice Katarine u Rimu. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Bosnia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Bosnia#/media/File:Epitaf_na_grobu_kraljice_Katarine.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:362D:7300:7CBA:5DEA:FE1E:5193 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hercog from Herzegovina before it existed?

If it was Stephen's ducal title "Herzog" that gave rise to the name Herzegovina maybe it would be better to change term Herzegovina in the below sentence to its previous name?

"...was a Bosnian nobleman from Herzegovina. "

I don't know its previous name, but probably some involved editor does know it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

p.s. He was born in the village called Kosače near Gorazde! So he cannot be from Herzegovina... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.120.202 (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Herzegovinian"

To employ the term "Herzegovinian" to describe the regional affiliations of Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca even before the region of Herzegovina existed as a proper toponym is highly asynchronous. It is obvious that Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca first and foremost was a Bosnian nobleman who eventually chose to break away from the Bosnian king. Credible sources have been provided to demonstrate that Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca is described as 'Bosnian' in the literature. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Issue

Two sons are listed as:

• Vladislav Hercegović (cca 1427 – 1487/89), Duke of St. Sava, Lord of Krajina, married Kyra Ana, daughter of Georgios Kantakuzenos in 1455
• Vlatko Hercegović (cca 1426 – Rab, 1489), Duke of St. Sava, married

This is the same son, born 1426 or 1427, died after 1487 and not after 1489 at Rab. Proper name Vladislav, nickname Vlatko (rather typical, even today). There were two other sons in addition to Vladislav/Vlatko and the son who converted to Islam whose names are not certain.

Krunoslav Draganović as a source

I see that Krunoslav Draganović's 1942 book has been used as a source here. Given Draganović was an Ustasha, pretty much anything he says is likely to be dubious and skewed to his viewpoint, even when it comes to the medieval history of Bosnia. Draganović's pre-war writings were used as justification for the Ustase forced conversion of Orthodox people to Catholicism during WWII, and I just don't think any of his work passes muster as a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I copy / pasted these from some GA. I would rather eat my own cohones then use a Nazi or Ustasha as a source, especially on topics of WWII or even modern history, and especially this or any other such person's polemical and propagandist writings, but he was also published and cited medievalist by training and not that much different from most of the Balkans medievalists regarding their personal worldview and perspective on the region and its ethnogenesis - he is ethno-nationalist (and was a sympathizer of Ustasha agenda). This, however, should not disqualify him / them outright, in my and, probably for different reasons, most editors view this is true. For writing on medieval history of the region, i use or do not object on usage of either Serbian or Croatian or Bosniak authors regardless of their eventual shaky morals, ideological and political background, simply because it is possible to filter out nonsense, fringe and polemical claims, etc., we should be able to manage in refining and deciding which part of their work is usable. This particular work is on medieval history, and specific parts used as a reference is perfectly innocuous, and perfectly correct - this means that we are rejecting this person only in principle by deciding as a community (at least in one TP discussion if not at the RS discussion board).
This issue should not be on editors' own discretion, to decide who was active Nazi or just sympathizer, while disregarding possible expertise in some field and should we or not used it (not to mention identifying them correctly) - we have great deal of such sources used all over the project, and not one policy or guideline which specifically deals with such a situations (no WP:Reliable authors). Griboski should not have removed the reference with an explanation "we don't use Nazis", instead they should have followed the procedure - because, well, we used them until we positively identify them to be Nazis and then agree that inclusion, in part or in whole as a principle, could be damaging for the project. There are many interesting discussions at WP:Reliable sources talk page (archive query: "Nazis").
My assessment of this very specific citing is that it is really perfectly innocuous and acceptable, but I would like to hear a few more opinions on this particular matter. I will try to ping some of them later.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, he was used as a source for this statement and only in that one place: "Herzog Stjepan refrained from claiming the Bosnian crown for his adolescent grandson Sigismund, Catherine's son and Stephen Tomašević's half-brother, probably realizing that Bosnia needed a strong, mature monarch in a time of peril." However, even this could be attributed to Dominik Mandič, who agrees and adopts this interpretation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

FAC mentorship comments

G'day, I have a few comments to make which will hopefully help get this across the line. Will start shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As is my practice, I will work through the body, then the IB, sources and images, then finish up with the lead.

Early life and rise (introductory paragraphs)

• in what polity (if any) were SVK's father's hereditary lands? The Kingdom of Bosnia?

Yes, the polity was Kingdom of Bosnia

then the place to mention that is here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

done

• "of one of the powerful Bosnian magnates, Sandalj Hranić,"

done

• the sentence beginning "When his father died in 1432..." is out of chronological order

this needs some clarification

• don't interchange placenames that mean the same thing in English and Serbo-Croatian like Upper Drina and Gornja Drina, I suggest sticking with Upper Drina

will be corrected accordingly

• the sentence beginning "His uncle Sandalj..." is out of chronological order

if you think on 1419 as chronologically problematic, it's actually correct date - at that point it was obvious that Sandalj choose him as heir and took him to his court to be close and to initiate him in political matters and matters of the state, military, and so on.

Sure, but what I mean is that the sentence beginning with "Already in 1419,..." is out of place. It should be immediately after "...chieftain of the Kosača family." so that it flows chronologically, and we are not jumping about temporally. The same applies to the sentence beginning "When his father died in 1432,..." which should immediately follow the sentence that I have recommended moving, ie the one that ends "...as his heir." You will have to add a couple of additional citations.

done

• the sentence fragment "following the death of his brother, Stjepan's father" is redundant, as we already know that Stjepan's father died in 1432

certainly - this is probably consequence of ce

• "Along with prestigious titles" is flowery, I suggest "Along with his titles"

I changed to "noble titles" just in case?

• suggest "all of the attendant obligations"

included "attended"

That is not the right word usage. "attendant" is correct.

done

• "Like his uncle Duke Sandalj, Stjepan"

done

• suggest "and had the most influence of any nobleman upon the development of the late-medieval Kingdom of Bosnia" and if "Kingdom of Bosnia" has been linked in the second sentence per my comment above, delink this one

done

Once you have added Kingdom of Bosnia and linked it in the second sentence of the section, delink this instance.

done

• delink Kingdom of Bosnia in the first sentence of the third para

done

• suggest "the Kingdom of Bosnia was developing"

before I change this, I would point that it was kinda period, moment even, when it started developing into that direction - maybe to leave this one as it is?

• can you explain why the links of Vukčić and Hranić are Easter-eggy? ie the titles of the articles aren't the same?

these are branches based on patronymic - fathers name would always become a surname for the next generation, yet the family is the same. Head of this Vukčić family is Hrvoje Vukčić, son of Vukac Hrvatinić and coincidently he gets to bear the same surname as Stjepan Vukčić; Hranić was the family name of Kosača during the period when this Sandalj, son of Hrana Vuković, was its chieftain, and historiography stick to this pattern of naming. Does this matter in our case I will let you decide.

No, that's fine.

• suggest "These families had significant independence in the conduct of..."

done

• suggest "setting up and replacing its monarchs"→"the accession and succession of the kings"

done

• Crown→crown

done

• not sure what "with the royal authority having a place of honor in it" is supposed to mean

this one for later - I need to check earlier (pre-ce) versions if they were any different and if context was disturbed by ce's

• explain that the Bosnian Church was schismatic, eg "and the Bosnian Church – a Christian church that was independent and schismatic from both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches."

I added this bit as suggested so for now it reads like this: "Bosnian unity was symbolized in the Bosnian crown, with the royal authority having a place of honor in it, and the Bosnian Church which was independent and schismatic from both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox." What do you think?

I would add "churches" after "Eastern Orthodox". This still isn't clear regarding the "place of honor" and what it means. Was is merely or largely symbolic given real power resided elsewhere?

"(P)lace of honor" should be read as prominent place, of outmost respect, primacy. Symbolic in terms of significance - in terms of pragmatic political influence, in practice, this means that these regional lords considered it a supreme authority and the outmost expression of statehood and unity, or belonging if you like - unless even if they were in rebellion.

• suggest "including on matters of foreign policy."

done

• suggest "Toward the end of the second decade of the 15th century, only Stjepan's uncle remained powerful." if that is right? I assume the other families still existed?

well noted - done

• this third para really needs to be consistently written in past tense, as it sets the scene.

I will try later and ask you to check it

• when you say "state authority" do you mean the king's authority?

well, mostly - but also aparatus as such, embodied in a parliament which was strong and influential, and which also included both lesser and preeminent families, so in this context "state" would mean both king(s) on one side and and all families in balance of power through this state aparatus

• In what way was the throne not stable during this period? Did it change hands? If so, these events should be included in the appropriate place chronologically.

yes, it changes hands in relatively rapid succession between 1391 and 1420, however, I did not mention it because it happened before our subject entered the scene, so to speak - I was wary not to venture to far into the past with the royal successions prior to Stjepan's takeover

No, I would mention is briefly, as otherwise we have no context for the new-found stability.

to be done

• "Under these circumstances Stjepan succeeded his uncle with violence" is foreshadowing, which really isn't appropriate in an encyclopaedia article. Just tell us what happened when it happened.

That part "with violence" refers practically to the rest of the article, where the info on what and when it happened is described in detail throughout following sections - we can remove it if its incompatible with a general wiki style of writing

Definitely not appropriate, I am not aware of any article I have ever reviewed that included foreshadowing of things to come.

removed

OK, I'll let you work through this stuff and then I'll have a look at the next subsection or two. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Here, Peacemaker67, I will fix Gornja to Upper, while I skipped one for clarification. Please, alert me when you check my edits. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Peacemaker67, please, when you get some spare time would you check through my edits and look at some of the point that I skipped for clarification (""When his father died in 1432..." is out of chronological order"; ""His uncle Sandalj..." is out of chronological order"), and any other point that you think needs more work; also, I would prefer if you could frame third para so it gets suggested past tense consistency. Thanks. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, I am also in doubt about the following: Christian /Christians is written with a capital letter "C" in English, however, in this article we have a name for members of the Bosnian Church who are called "krstjani", in the singular "krstjanin", and in Bosnian it is written with with a lowercase letter "k" - considering that it is a noun, should we use the rules of the English language and write with a capital letter "K" or obey the rules of Bosnian and write with a lowercase letter "k"? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

were krstjani Christians? My understanding is that they were, and we therefore use the generic term for believers in Christ in English, "Christians". We would only use krstjani if the majority of reliable sources in English on the Bosnian Church referred to the adherents of the Bosnian Church used that word instead of Christians. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are always specifically called "krstjani" (in English sources they are often referred to as "patarens" even), to immediately designate their adherence to BC and/or differentiate them from Orthodox and Catholics, or Christians in general. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I did a check myself and it is consistent with what you have said, so use "krstjani". There are some comments above that still need addressing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, PM. So then we should continue to use "krstjani" and stick to the lowercase "k"? I'll go through your clarifications today, and please let me ping you if I get stuck or misunderstand something again. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A few bits of sharpening up needed:

"becoming the most-powerful nobleman in Bosnia under the kings Tvrtko II, Thomas, and Stephen II" is foreshadowing what we are to be told later in the article, this is the sort of language you would use in a Legacy section at the end and/or in the lead, not here when we are learning about his early life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"becoming the most-powerful nobleman in Bosnia under the kings Tvrtko II, Thomas, and Stephen II" - this part of the sentence can be removed without spoiling meaning and a context.

౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe to remove "under the kings Tvrtko II, Thomas, and Stephen II" bit, because "becoming the most-powerful nobleman in Bosnia" was immediate reality and shouldn't mess with a chronology ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

the same applies to "Like his uncle, Stjepan became the most-powerful Bosnian magnate of his time and had the most influence of any nobleman upon the development of the late-medieval Kingdom of Bosnia" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Then, I guess the most appropriate place to move this would be to LEDE? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"Toward the end of the second decade of the 15th century, however, only Stjepan's uncle Sandalj remained powerful. The state authority was becoming influential again, and the throne was more stable." needs to be moved up in the narrative to the point in the chronology where Sandalj is still alive. Again, we are jumping around chronologically, which doesn't make sense in an early life section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to make one point - the problem with this is that it fit context of the third and fourth paragraph; in first and second we give dry info on birth place-date, and when we mention Sandalj in the second paragraph, explaining that he died on some date, it is only to point to a precise moment when Stjepan took over. Broader life-and-state circumstances we start explaining in third and fourth para, where it fit chronology ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I merged third and fourth para into one. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Under these circumstances Stjepan succeeded his uncle with violence." still needs to be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

(To be) removed.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• OK, back again. I still have an issue with "Like his uncle, Stjepan became the most-powerful Bosnian magnate of his time and had the most influence of any nobleman upon the development of the late-medieval Kingdom of Bosnia.[7]" The second part of this sentence foreshadows what happened later, and belongs in the Legacy subsection, as well as the appropriate spot in the lead. Even if the first part of the sentence happened immediately upon his succession (becoming the most powerful magnate), it isn't appropriate to say "of his time" here, because we haven't had that part of the story yet, and the influence he had is also in the future. Assuming the reliable sources support it, I would trim this sentence to something like "Upon succeeding his uncle, Stjepan became the most powerful magnate in Bosnia." or similar. Leave the rest for elsewhere in the article when it has actually happened. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Also, the third para almost all belongs above the second para, as it provides the historical background of the first two decades of the 15thC that preceded Stjepan coming to power. The only bit of the third para (which should be integrated into what is now the second para) is the last two sentences. Ping me if you need some help with this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Peacemaker67, please forgive me for being absent for so long, I have a huge still unresolved issue with my cable operator (besides, I've never edited via mobile), which makes me anxious because connection still might get interrupted, so I beg you for some flexibility if I get unresponsive for prolonged time in the following few weeks. I will implement your suggestions and let you know as soon as I get a chance and a stable connection. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Don't stress, there is no deadline. Once you have addressed the above ping me, then I'll move on to the next section and recap where we are there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuing Early life and rise

• You need to explain that the Republic of Ragusa was a neighboring state.

This could prove to be hellishly difficult to reference, I included some explanation into sub-section Citizens of Ragusa - it seemed more appropriate place, but I have to find similarly explicit reference for the statements. Until I find something, please see if this is clear enough.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing, in that you have used Ragusa, Dubrovnik and Primorje to refer to the same place. My understanding is that Dubrovnik was called Ragusa at this point in time anyway? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

City of Dubrovnik was first named Ragusa by Venetians, then Slavs started calling it Dubrovnik, but what matters for us is that in historiography territory of the republic is referred to as Rep.of Ragusa while the city itself was called Dubrovnik, say, "Republic of Ragusa is centered on town of Dubrovnik". "Primorje" was territory that belonged to Bosnia and only within Bosnia bore that name (actually it was also župa with a same name, and full name would be Bosansko/Bosnian Primorje), and geographically, it was a piece of land that surrounded and bordered Rep.of Ragusa territory. As for RoR/Dubrovnik, maybe we should choose one or the other, preferably Dubrovnik - it is a problem throughout the article because while I was writing I was quite indecisive about this Ragusa-Dubrovnik issue, but I tried to use Ragusa for the state and Dubrovnik for the City. I will address your other suggestions from the above later and alert you in due time after I finished fixing it. Thanks, PM, and see you later. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• At some point you also need to explain the relationship between the Kingdom of Bosnia, Hungary and the Ottomans and how it developed prior to Stjepan rising to power and while he was ascendant. This did not occur in a bubble, and larger dominant powers had a significant amount of influence and involvement in the affairs of the Kingdom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This could prove to be hellishly difficult to summarize, I will alert you on this when I find a way to express this complicated dynamics.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 My work on this was/is interrupted two weeks ago with some RL difficulties so I had to turn my attention away. I am slowly returning now, but I expect to be engaged as usual in another week or two. Please, PM, if you could refresh your input on things we did so far - I am not sure if you like some of the fixes (or explanations) I did last time ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW while we're at it, it would be nice if we could normalize the mentions of the Sokol or Soko fortress. It's not clear if it is just a difference introduced by later Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian writers or something from the primary sources. --Joy (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a problem, and I tried to find out, looking in regional sources, if there is some uniformity, from case to case (fortress to fortress), and I was unable to get any sense on naming of these places in regard to this issue. Maybe we, as editors, could decide to simply name them per local languages - fortresses in CRO per Croatian = Sokol; in Serbia per Serbian = Soko; in Bosnia both, I guess?! Prim sources are tricky because they are often in Latin - it seems that 20th and 21st c. history books simply choose the name per language they were written in, and it makes sense - Soko/Sokol is one and the same name written in Hr-Sr-Bs. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Btw, @Joy, do you have time and energy to help a bit with this nom, to speed things up a little bit? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)